Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 02/26/26 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
(It is to be noted that claim 24 is drawn to a non-elected species, therefore, it is not included in the prosecution. Additionally, it depends on a non-elected claim 2.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaro et al. (EP 2774481A1, presented in IDS) in view of Purschwitz et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0221694A1) and Candau et al. (EP 1093796); as evidenced by (Environmental Fact sheet).
Pesaro discloses a liquid detergent composition in Table LIII on page 67, comprising 3.0% of Na-salt of fatty alcohol sulfates C12-14 (reads on alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant as claimed) and 0.8% of an antimicrobial agent as substance of formula (I) (reads on a biocide as claimed), see paragraph [0015] as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by “Environmental fact sheet, Na-salt of fatty alcohol sulfates C12-14 are known by other names as sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium salt, n-Dodecyl sulphate, see page 1. Thus, reads on the claimed alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant.
In another embodiment in table XV, on page 49, Pesaro et al. discloses antimicrobial compositions, see title. Pesaro et al. teaches in Table XV, use of 3% of sodium lauryl sulfate (reads on alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant), 0.6% of Methyl isothiazolinone (a biocide as claimed) and use of water, 77. 2% to make the composition, (reading on aqueous composition). Regarding the compositions being suitable for use as a sealant, coating or varnish, the intended use of the prepared composition does not appear to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and as such, the intended use is not considered to further limit the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Pesaro et al. discloses antimicrobial compositions as discussed above. Pesaro teaches phenoxyethanol as antimicrobial in [0020] on page 4. Pesaro teaches thickeners such as polyacrylates, for example Carbopols (reads on carbomer polymers, see [0033]). Vinyl pyrrolidone/vinyl acrylate copolymers (reads on acrylate copolymer), see [0035].
The reference suggests use of the above antimicrobial agent, phenoxyethanol and the claimed surfactants such as carbomers and acrylate polymers and it involves picking and choosing of the antimicrobial agent and surfactant from a list of agents and surfactants which are not in a single embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have combined the specific polyacrylate polymer and carbopol polymer as taught by Pesaro et al. in the disclosed antimicrobial composition because combining prior art elements according to known methods would have provided predictable results of obtaining an antimicrobial composition, see MPEP 2143 part (1)(A).
While Pesaro teaches use of polyacrylates and vinyl polymers, as discussed below while teaching antimicrobial preparation teaches use of acrylates and vinyl polymers.
Purschwitz et al. while teaching a liquid composition disclose use of various antimicrobial agents including para-chloro-meta-xylenol biocide, see [0024] and claims 16. The reference taches use of polyacrylates, carbopol in [0214]. The reference teaches use of that the disclosure further provides personal care and home care compositions having “mildness-enhancing agents” added thereto. These “mildness-enhancing ingredients” include cationic and nonionic polymers, co-surfactants, moisturizers and mixtures thereof. As examples for other anionic, zwitterionic, amphoteric and non-ionic polymers come into consideration, for example, vinyl acetate/crotonic acid copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acrylate copolymers, vinyl acetate/butyl maleate/isobornyl acrylate copolymers, methyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride copolymers and esters thereof, uncrosslinked polyacrylic acids and polyacrylic acids crosslinked with polyols, acrylamidopropyl-trimethylammonium chloride/acrylate copolymers, octyl acrylamide/methyl methacrylatetertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate/2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate copolymers, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers, vinylpyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate/vinyl caprolactam terpolymers and also optionally derivatised cellulose ethers and silicones. Furthermore, the polymers as described in EP 1093796 (pages 3-8, paragraphs 17-68, Candau et al.) may be used, see [0146], Table 3. The reference also teaches that in some embodiments, the mildness enhancing co-surfactants (which includes the acrylates as discussed above) comprise from about 20% to about 70% by weight of the anionic surfactants, see [0148].
Candau et al. EP 1093796 as referenced above by Purschwitz et al., while teaching emulsions for cosmetic and dermatological application, discloses among the associative anionic polymers, it is particularly preferred according to the invention, polymers formed from 20 to 60% by weight of acrylic acid and / or acid methacrylic, from 5 to 60% by weight of lower alkyl (meth) acrylates, from 2 to 50% by weight of fatty chain allyl ether of formula (I), and from 0 to 1% by weight of an agent crosslinker which is a well-known polyethylenic unsaturated copolymerizable monomer, such as diallyl phthalate, allyl (meth) acrylate, divinylbenzene, (poly) ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and methylene-bis-acrylamide, see the translation.
Thus Purschwitz et al. and Candau et al. teach the use of polymers in an aqueous and emulsion formulation which comprises acrylate polymers. The references as discussed above provide guidance as to the use of polymers in the personal care and household products. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have manipulated the amounts of polymers taught by Pesaro et al. as modified by Purschwitz et al. and Candau et al. to utilize various types of homo and hetero polymers, acrylate polymers and vinyl polymers and manipulate their amounts as Purschwitz et al. and Candau et al. both teach the generic amounts ranging from 20% to about 70% by weight of the anionic surfactants, and polymers formed from 20 to 60% by weight of acrylic acid and / or acid methacrylic, from 5 to 60% by weight of lower alkyl (meth) acrylates as disclosed by Purschwitz et al. and Candau et al. respectively.
The teachings of Pesaro have been discussed above. Pesaro does not teach use of para-chloro-meta-xylenol biocide (a chlorinated phenol biocide).
Purschwitz et al. while teaching a liquid composition disclose use of various antimicrobial agents including para-chloro-meta-xylenol biocide, see [0024] and claims 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized antimicrobial, para-chloro-meta-xylenol biocide (a chlorinated phenol biocide) into the composition of Pesaro et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Pesaro teaches antimicrobial compositions and Purschwitz et al. while teaching a liquid composition suggests use of antimicrobials such as para-chloro-meta-xylenol biocide (a chlorinated phenol biocide). Therefore, utilization of additional antimicrobial agent would have provided added antimicrobial properties. Combining prior art elements according to known methods would have provided predicable antimicrobial effects, see MPEP 2141. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), MPEP 2144.
Claims 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaro (EP 2774481A1, presented in IDS) in view of Purschwitz et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0221694A1), Candau et al. (EP 1093796) in view of Lemmons et al. (WO 2009/099419A2) ) and further in view of Ding et al. (CN102296004, translation provided in IDS); as evidenced by (Environmental Fact sheet).
The teachings of Pesaro have been discussed above. Pesaro does not teach use of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant.
Ding et al. teaches a cleaning composition comprising a non-ionic surfactant and anionic surfactant, see abstract. Ding teaches sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonates, see [0009], [0035] and [0052].
Lemmons et al. teaches an aqueous composition comprising organic diol wherein the composition is antimicrobial composition, wherein the composition is produced by mixing acid and water to produce an antimicrobial composition, see claims 1, 58 and 62. The reference teaches use of anionic surfactant such as sodium lauryl sulfate, alkylbenzene sulfonic acid and sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, see claims 20 and 23. (The reference thus provides equivalency among various surfactants used in an antimicrobial composition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known sodium dodecylbenzene sulfate in place of sodium lauryl sulfate of Pesaro et al. as taught by Ding et al. and Lemmons et al. and come to the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Ding teaches use of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonates in a cleaning composition and Lemmons while teaching an antimicrobial composition provides equivalency between sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonates.
Simple substitution of one anionic surfactant with another would have provided predictable results of surface active properties since Lemmons et al. teaches equivalency between the anionic surfactants , sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium dodecylbenzene sulfate. Simple substitution of one known element for another would have provided predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I) (B).
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of Purschwitz et al. teaching use of polymers as discussed above in an antimicrobial preparation in high amounts which makes the claimed invention obvious.
Action is final
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights